Young-Min Park1, Timothy D Heden1, Ying Liu1, Lauryn M Nyhoff1, John P Thyfault2, Heather J Leidy1, Jill A Kanaley3. 1. Departments of Nutrition and Exercise Physiology and. 2. Departments of Nutrition and Exercise Physiology and Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. 3. Departments of Nutrition and Exercise Physiology and kanaleyj@missouri.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The previous meal modulates the postprandial glycemic responses to a subsequent meal; this is termed the second-meal phenomenon. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the effects of high-protein vs. high-carbohydrate breakfast meals on the metabolic and incretin responses after the breakfast and lunch meals. METHODS: Twelve type 2 diabetic men and women [age: 21-55 y; body mass index (BMI): 30-40 kg/m(2)] completed two 7-d breakfast conditions consisting of 500-kcal breakfast meals as protein (35% protein/45% carbohydrate) or carbohydrate (15% protein/65% carbohydrate). On day 7, subjects completed an 8-h testing day. After an overnight fast, the subjects consumed their respective breakfast followed by a standard 500-kcal high-carbohydrate lunch meal 4 h later. Blood samples were taken throughout the day for assessment of 4-h postbreakfast and 4-h postlunch total area under the curve (AUC) for glucose, insulin, C-peptide, glucagon, glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP), and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1). RESULTS: Postbreakfast glucose and GIP AUCs were lower after the protein (17%) vs. after the carbohydrate (23%) condition (P < 0.05), whereas postbreakfast insulin, C-peptide, glucagon, and GLP-1 AUCs were not different between conditions. A protein-rich breakfast may reduce the consequences of hyperglycemia in this population. Postlunch insulin, C-peptide, and GIP AUCs were greater after the protein condition vs. after the carbohydrate condition (second-meal phenomenon; all, P < 0.05), but postlunch AUCs were not different between conditions. The overall glucose, glucagon, and GLP-1 responses (e.g., 8 h) were greater after the protein condition vs. after the carbohydrate condition (all, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In type 2 diabetic individuals, compared with a high-carbohydrate breakfast, the consumption of a high-protein breakfast meal attenuates the postprandial glucose response and does not magnify the response to the second meal. Insulin, C-peptide, and GIP concentrations demonstrate the second-meal phenomenon and most likely aid in keeping the glucose concentrations controlled in response to the subsequent meal. The trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02180646 as NCT02180646.
BACKGROUND: The previous meal modulates the postprandial glycemic responses to a subsequent meal; this is termed the second-meal phenomenon. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the effects of high-protein vs. high-carbohydrate breakfast meals on the metabolic and incretin responses after the breakfast and lunch meals. METHODS: Twelve type 2 diabeticmen and women [age: 21-55 y; body mass index (BMI): 30-40 kg/m(2)] completed two 7-d breakfast conditions consisting of 500-kcal breakfast meals as protein (35% protein/45% carbohydrate) or carbohydrate (15% protein/65% carbohydrate). On day 7, subjects completed an 8-h testing day. After an overnight fast, the subjects consumed their respective breakfast followed by a standard 500-kcal high-carbohydrate lunch meal 4 h later. Blood samples were taken throughout the day for assessment of 4-h postbreakfast and 4-h postlunch total area under the curve (AUC) for glucose, insulin, C-peptide, glucagon, glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP), and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1). RESULTS: Postbreakfast glucose and GIP AUCs were lower after the protein (17%) vs. after the carbohydrate (23%) condition (P < 0.05), whereas postbreakfast insulin, C-peptide, glucagon, and GLP-1 AUCs were not different between conditions. A protein-rich breakfast may reduce the consequences of hyperglycemia in this population. Postlunch insulin, C-peptide, and GIP AUCs were greater after the protein condition vs. after the carbohydrate condition (second-meal phenomenon; all, P < 0.05), but postlunch AUCs were not different between conditions. The overall glucose, glucagon, and GLP-1 responses (e.g., 8 h) were greater after the protein condition vs. after the carbohydrate condition (all, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In type 2 diabetic individuals, compared with a high-carbohydrate breakfast, the consumption of a high-protein breakfast meal attenuates the postprandial glucose response and does not magnify the response to the second meal. Insulin, C-peptide, and GIP concentrations demonstrate the second-meal phenomenon and most likely aid in keeping the glucose concentrations controlled in response to the subsequent meal. The trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02180646 as NCT02180646.
Authors: Dean M Allerton; Matthew D Campbell; Javier T Gonzalez; Penny L S Rumbold; Daniel J West; Emma J Stevenson Journal: Nutrients Date: 2016-02-25 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Nadiyah Abdullah Al-Mountashiri; Amal Mohammad Al-Zhrani; Shereen Fawzy Hafez Ibrahim; Hyder Othman Mirghani Journal: Electron Physician Date: 2017-09-25
Authors: Akua F Amankwaah; R Drew Sayer; Amy J Wright; Ningning Chen; Megan A McCrory; Wayne W Campbell Journal: Nutrients Date: 2017-04-02 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Shila Shafaeizadeh; Leilani Muhardi; Christiani Jeyakumar Henry; Bert J M van de Heijning; Eline M van der Beek Journal: Nutrients Date: 2018-02-08 Impact factor: 5.717